The Enemy Within Our Gates

[PoliticalChic]

Silly season never ends for this ho.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Another thread full of lunacy by Poli Esther.

Was that first line addressed to your mom?

We aren't supposed to talk about peoples families.

So that first line was addressed to you Poli Esther.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Don't come back until you learn how to address your betters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Don’t imagine for a moment that the Democrat elites wouldn’t institute Sharia in America in a hot New York second.

More proof is that they chose as their impeachment champion a ‘scholar’ who has endorsed just that, Professor Feldman.


“The legal evidence we have from the countries in which it has been tried suggests that the demands for the implementation of the Shariah primarily means that of its penal code (hudud) with severe punishments for adultery, theft and blasphemy which gravely disadvantage the women, the poor and the religiously deviant, and has no constitutional component.

The sociological evidence suggests that the ideological demand for the Shariah as the basis of the constitution and source of all laws appeals to the puritanical moralism strengthened by the resurgence of Islam that sees divinely-ordained severe punishment as the most effective way of stopping the moral corruption and libertinism coming from the West.

The legal aspect is much better documented than the sociological one, and there is ample evidence where the Islamists have succeeded in establishing the Shariah as the source of law as in Pakistan, the Sudan, Iran and Nigeria. Can a professor of law be excused for not having read about any of this in the press or reports from human rights organizations on the subject of his specialization?” Why Shariah?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. We were told that the Democrats spokesperson for impeachment was an expert in constitutional law.

Now we know which constitution…..

.Sharia is the ‘constitution’ of Islam. And when a member of that movement is asked to decide whether they answer to our Constitution, or to sharia, we know whether we have a citizen of America, or a fifth columnist.


In America, the Constitution is the ‘law of the land,’ we are not a theocracy, and that should be clear to all. The Constitution is the only law the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by.

“Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
… concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah.” The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law



And if you don’t agree, well….you’re bigoted, small-minded, Islamophobic, …and fearful.

“…of course, there are a lot of people who are just haters of all things Muslim,…”

Sounds a lot like the Muslim President… “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…”



While the Great Yogi made the point, “'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future',” if we look to the UK, we may see the march of sharia into the public arena. In England, Islam has no intention of remaining either moderate, nor a minority.
Small pockets of Muslim-majority towns and communities demand that they be governed by sharia…..but with a far wider intention. Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), the aim is clear and evident in Britain.


And America?

That depends......

 

[IM2]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

She made 4 simple points -- and proved them -- in the OP.

But I suppose your way is easier than making an argument against her points.

She made no sense given the reality of the constitution.

 

[IM2]

Silly season never ends for this ho.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Another thread full of lunacy by Poli Esther.

Was that first line addressed to your mom?

We aren't supposed to talk about peoples families.

So that first line was addressed to you Poli Esther.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Do you think Lynch was talking about changing the Constitution when she was talking about jailing people who criticize Islam?

Or did she just want to declare her actions legal and go ahead and put people in jail?

And do you think public schools could get away with teaching kids the Christian prayer of salvation?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ctions-predicated-on-violent-talk-toward-musl

Another example of disingenuous right wing bullshit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. “Shariah is Anti-Constitutional

Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

1. the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

2. the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

3. freedom of conscience; individual liberty

4. freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

5. economic liberty (including private property);

6. equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

7. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and

8. an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.”
The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law


Could Islam/sharia take over?


Do you know the history of Islam….and of the Democrat Party?

Neither embrace Americanism.

 

[daveman]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

She made 4 simple points -- and proved them -- in the OP.

But I suppose your way is easier than making an argument against her points.

She made no sense given the reality of the constitution.

Oh, the Constitution the left works around and ignores whenever they can?

 

[daveman]

Silly season never ends for this ho.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Another thread full of lunacy by Poli Esther.

Was that first line addressed to your mom?

We aren't supposed to talk about peoples families.

So that first line was addressed to you Poli Esther.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Do you think Lynch was talking about changing the Constitution when she was talking about jailing people who criticize Islam?

Or did she just want to declare her actions legal and go ahead and put people in jail?

And do you think public schools could get away with teaching kids the Christian prayer of salvation?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ctions-predicated-on-violent-talk-toward-musl

Another example of disingenuous right wing bullshit.

"Edges towards violence" is not committing violence.

We again see how the left wants to punish people for having the wrong opinions.

 

[anynameyouwish]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

She made 4 simple points -- and proved them -- in the OP.

But I suppose your way is easier than making an argument against her points.

She made no sense given the reality of the constitution.

Oh, the Constitution the left works around and ignores whenever they can?

no, no....the one the right ignores and works around whenever it can.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Silly season never ends for this ho.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Another thread full of lunacy by Poli Esther.

Was that first line addressed to your mom?

We aren't supposed to talk about peoples families.

So that first line was addressed to you Poli Esther.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Do you think Lynch was talking about changing the Constitution when she was talking about jailing people who criticize Islam?

Or did she just want to declare her actions legal and go ahead and put people in jail?

And do you think public schools could get away with teaching kids the Christian prayer of salvation?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ctions-predicated-on-violent-talk-toward-musl

Another example of disingenuous right wing bullshit.

"Edges towards violence" is not committing violence.

We again see how the left wants to punish people for having the wrong opinions.

I see you waving your guns around.

I guess we can see how the right wants to silence people for having the wrong opinions.

 

[daveman]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

She made 4 simple points -- and proved them -- in the OP.

But I suppose your way is easier than making an argument against her points.

She made no sense given the reality of the constitution.

Oh, the Constitution the left works around and ignores whenever they can?

no, no....the one the right ignores and works around whenever it can.

Oh, okay. You're just making shit up.

 

[daveman]

Was that first line addressed to your mom?

We aren't supposed to talk about peoples families.

So that first line was addressed to you Poli Esther.

Do you understand what it would take for our constitution to be changed to make ANY RELIGION our national law?

Do you think Lynch was talking about changing the Constitution when she was talking about jailing people who criticize Islam?

Or did she just want to declare her actions legal and go ahead and put people in jail?

And do you think public schools could get away with teaching kids the Christian prayer of salvation?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ctions-predicated-on-violent-talk-toward-musl

Another example of disingenuous right wing bullshit.

"Edges towards violence" is not committing violence.

We again see how the left wants to punish people for having the wrong opinions.

I see you waving your guns around.

I guess we can see how the right wants to silence people for having the wrong opinions.

The leftists on this board sure do seem to be afraid of a painting of a fictional character holding weapons that aren't even pointed at them.

How pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Feldman Who Argued ‘Islamists never got a chance..to govern’ Is Certain Trump Should Be Impeached

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman testified against President Donald Trump Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, saying the president committed abuse of power based on his interpretation of the what the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachment.

Feldman is not only a constitutional expert, he’s a liberal who has openly written about his dislike of Trump. He’s also touted as an expert with regard to the Middle East, and assisted Iraq in the drafting of their own constitution.

He attempts to argue that Islamists ideology is evolving is void of reality when he bought into the assumption that the extremists welcomed Democracy. He suggested in 2003, that Al-Qa’ida became “politically irrelevant” after the attacks and that the “alarmist argument is behind the curve.”

That was only two years after Al-Qa’ida attacked the United States and killed 3,000 people. Further, we’ve seen what happened since with extremists organizations, such as Islamic State.


Feldman:

The Islamists never got a chance, really, to govern, and if there’s one central argument that I’m trying to press in the book, it’s that Islamists who say they are committed democrats, who tell you that they believe in democracy, who believe that Islam and democracy are deeply compatible, not incompatible, should be given a chance to govern. They’ve never been given that chance anywhere, and I think many, many people in the Muslim world—not all, but many—would vote for them, Feldman"
Feldman Who Argued 'Islamists never got a chance..to govern' Is Certain Trump Should Be Impeached

 

[Bleipriester]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

Having trouble with your posting yet again.


Are you trying to say that everyone should oppose the Islamofascist-Democrat Axis?????

 

[Bleipriester]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

Having trouble with your posting yet again.


Are you trying to say that everyone should oppose the Islamofascist-Democrat Axis?????

No. There were actual jihads ongoing. Our politicians in their attached free press here in the west referred to them as liberation wars for freedom and democracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

Having trouble with your posting yet again.


Are you trying to say that everyone should oppose the Islamofascist-Democrat Axis?????

No. There were actual jihads ongoing. Our politicians in their attached free press here in the west referred to them as liberation wars for freedom and democracy.

There have been 'actual jihads' for 1400 years.
There has been no freedom, or liberty reformation in this sphere in all of that time.

Have someone with a greater facility in English, read it to you.

 

[Bleipriester]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

Having trouble with your posting yet again.


Are you trying to say that everyone should oppose the Islamofascist-Democrat Axis?????

No. There were actual jihads ongoing. Our politicians in their attached free press here in the west referred to them as liberation wars for freedom and democracy.

There have been 'actual jihads' for 1400 years.
There has been no freedom, or liberty reformation in this sphere in all of that time.

Have someone with a greater facility in English, read it to you.

Only secular governments have a chance to provide freedom. And my English is even great!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.

a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution

b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.


2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays

What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.



3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)

Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:

“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts


4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.

“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.

He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.

“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review





Recognize the enemy?

Yet, who opposes their onslaught, is an evil dictator.

Having trouble with your posting yet again.


Are you trying to say that everyone should oppose the Islamofascist-Democrat Axis?????

No. There were actual jihads ongoing. Our politicians in their attached free press here in the west referred to them as liberation wars for freedom and democracy.

There have been 'actual jihads' for 1400 years.
There has been no freedom, or liberty reformation in this sphere in all of that time.

Have someone with a greater facility in English, read it to you.

Only secular governments have a chance to provide freedom. And my English is even great!

"Only secular governments have a chance to provide freedom."


And you're saying this.....why?


As an experiment.....try turning around rapidly when you are speaking to others......see if you catch the eye-rolling.

 

[daveman]

"Feldman Who Argued ‘Islamists never got a chance..to govern’ Is Certain Trump Should Be Impeached

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman testified against President Donald Trump Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, saying the president committed abuse of power based on his interpretation of the what the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachment.

Feldman is not only a constitutional expert, he’s a liberal who has openly written about his dislike of Trump. He’s also touted as an expert with regard to the Middle East, and assisted Iraq in the drafting of their own constitution.

He attempts to argue that Islamists ideology is evolving is void of reality when he bought into the assumption that the extremists welcomed Democracy. He suggested in 2003, that Al-Qa’ida became “politically irrelevant” after the attacks and that the “alarmist argument is behind the curve.”

That was only two years after Al-Qa’ida attacked the United States and killed 3,000 people. Further, we’ve seen what happened since with extremists organizations, such as Islamic State.


Feldman:

The Islamists never got a chance, really, to govern, and if there’s one central argument that I’m trying to press in the book, it’s that Islamists who say they are committed democrats, who tell you that they believe in democracy, who believe that Islam and democracy are deeply compatible, not incompatible, should be given a chance to govern. They’ve never been given that chance anywhere, and I think many, many people in the Muslim world—not all, but many—would vote for them, Feldman"
Feldman Who Argued 'Islamists never got a chance..to govern' Is Certain Trump Should Be Impeached

Is this guy in 3rd grade?

His entire argument is C'MON GUYS ITS NOT FAAAAAAAIR WE SHOULD LET ISLAMISTS RUN THINGS MOM SAID ITS THEIR TURN